mark_pilkington.
I just assumed it was a case of the British setting all their clocks to Greenwich Mean Time!
smiles
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonGraham,
The left side is clearly Anson, (I am used to looking at Mark I’s smiles) so I assume its a late model Anson such as a Mk XIX etc.
The Mark 1 was only a half panel
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
Thanks guys,
it would have made a great carrier aircraft for the Pacific, a twin engined Firefly? or a Gannet with its twin engines where they should be!
smiles effectively a carrier based Mossie/Beau!
I assume this is the same prototype in earlier times?
And they certainly mucked around with the design!
Hmmm – maybe in the ASV role the Gannet was a better outcome?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonKnowing the condition she was in when she left Southend and having seen the recent pictures I would imagine that a cockpit must be the least of your worries at present.
I still think it very sad that no one over here was prepared to give her a home at any point after she left Southend and I am sure RF342 would be no more had she not gone to Australia.
No, she’s not in good condition but that is mainly the wing centre-section and inboard trailing edge aft of the rear spar, the wings from the rear spars forward are fine, as are the fuselage sections. currently she is still in temporary storage but undercover while we continue to collect parts.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRF342 …the best option was to restore her as far as possible to represent the time she spent with Napier on icing research.
Having lost the Lancaster cockpit it must be far more difficult to restore her again in any form..
Australia had a number of RAF test bed Lincolns operate at Woomera, and the type is well known for that role, had we got the cockpit I would have been strongly supporting it being presented in the Napier configuration too even though its not a direct link to Australian operations.
With the cockpit long gone there is the opportunity to acquire one of two Lincoln cockpits still surviving elsewhere, or building a replica cockpit.
If a complete existing cockpit was acquired, then I would prefer to see that remain intact, and probably result in the aircraft adopting that cockpits identity (while still retaining and acknowledging RF342’s provenance).
If a cockpit wreck was acquired, then I would prefer to see that option explore the possibility of creating a RAAF long nose Mk 31 outcome, to effectively fill a hole not covered by the Cosford or Argentine examples.
The construction of a replica cockpit could follow that same outcome too.
A problem for the future!
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonTime for a full size Stirling mock-up/model/reproduction/replica/reconstruction to materialize to represent this important type to be later joined by the finished forward fuselage of the Stirling Project.
:rolleyes:
Cees
Sounds like a great idea, one of Peter Jacksons plastic “Lancasters” and a large fibreglass “Stirling” replica both at YAM with the “Halifax” would make that a Bomber Command Mecca, regardless of the status of the “aircraft”.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRic,
It is a difficult creation to put a definitive label on, its a hybrid of reproduction and original parts, it is clearly a “Full Scale Reproduction”, but clearly much more than a shell of fibre-glass “Full Scale Model”.
Its not a single airframe “restored” or a “composite” airframe of original but disparate parts adopting the identity of a main section.
Had the IWM cockpit been fitted it would have been reasonable to display the outcome as that identity in my opinion, effectively the cockpit has been “restored” into a complete airframe via the use of composite and hybrid components.
Our Lincoln “if and when finished”, will obviously have compromises, I doubt it will have engines fitted due the additional work/weight etc, who knows how externally complete it will end up, and no doubt there will be parts missing that will need to be fabricated to fill the hole.
The outcome will be described as RF342 and will be entitled to claim that provenance, but it will be far short of that aircrafts condition and authenticity in its heyday or even arrival into preservation in 1967.
While it hopefully will become the best and only complete Lincoln on display in Australia, it will unfortunately never match the prinstine examples elsewhere, and they will remain the primary reference examples for future historians.
Airframes in museums have a number of roles, entertain, commemorate/allow interpretation of history/events, introduce/educate on concepts/technology, and preserve intact examples of artefacts.
Not every airframe forfills every role, and thats fine.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonInteresting. What exactly is getting bolted onto the front of the Lincoln project?
It would have been nice if the IWM nose had been put to the project, to make what is a composite aircraft that bit more genuine. I mean its not like during the war the wrong sections ever got assembled back together from different serialled aircraft after repair.
Oh, silly me.
They did.
YAM’s Halifax is an excellent effort. It looks like a Halifax, it sits like a Halifax, and most of the parts (if I remember) carry Halifax part numbers. Thats good enough for me, and the thousands of other visitors every year. Short of getting a tape measure on it and a set of original drawings out, could any of you, honestly, point out where it differs?
Regards,
Ric
(still blinking in disbelief at finding himself defending a Halifax)
Ric / Others
I certainly wasn’t wishing to knock the efforts of those who built the YAM “Halifax”, and my opinions admiring their efforts and applauding them will be found elsewhere on this same site on this same issue, as also will be my view of its provenence, along which much debate by others on that topic and details of the differences in the wing structure etc, (nacelle spacing etc).
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=68346
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=82784&page=3
The argument that repaired wartime aircraft had differing sections of other production aircraft added to them during repair is irrelevent, wartime Halifax’s didnt have post war Hastings wings and wing centre-sections added to them.
The Hastings wing IS in fact Halifax, with the centre section adapted for the Hastings rounder fuselage cross section, underslung nacelles and the intermediate wingsection between the engines is wider. Perhaps that’s why the dihedral of YAM’s Halifax is flatter. But in essence it’s genuine Halifax.
Its a compromise required to achieve the outcome, but still not a Halifax wing, despite the ancestral relationships and part numbers, it is certainly not “genuine”!
The same argument is often invoked to try and claim modern reproductions full of 2010 aluminium and new structures, are original and “genuine” wartime aircraft simply because they carry an original “data plate”, and wartime airframes were “repaired” with both salvaged and new (but wartime built) parts.
The Lincoln is yet to “secure” a cockpit and could well end up with a reproduction nose exactly as “Friday the 13th” has, it would then be less of a “Lincoln” than those surviving in Argentina or Cosford, and its use as a technical reference of the type would be diminished or compromised as a result.
If the Lincoln reproduction / replica nose was only externally accurate, even without internals, it would assist in presenting an externally complete “Lincoln” in Australia, something which is not available via any other example, and so the result justifies the means.
The YAM did a wonderful and complicated project to create what was then the only surviving Halifax in the world, however its not in anyway of the same value as the Hendon or Trenton examples in terms of provenance, significance or authenticity.
It does however provide the only opportunity to see a complete Halifax on its gear in the UK, where the type contributed so much to the Bomber Command war effort.
Reproductions, Replicas and even fibre-glass Full Scale Reproductions all have a place in museums, the RAF Museum at Hendon has a number of WW1 reproductions, in Australia the Qantas Founders has a replica Avro 504K, along with a Fibre-glass “Giant Moth”.
The “Giant Moth” is the only opportunity to see a representation of that aircraft on its legs, in full size, three dimensionally, any where in the world, but “it” wont fly, “it” wasnt built or flown by DH, and “it” isnt a real “DH-61”.
Even if it does look like a duck, walk like a duck or quack like a duck, those attributes dont make it a duck.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
I personally agree with the outcome and the IWM decision, it was the correct decision to make for the artefact.
The IWM Halifax cockpit was at the time the most intact Halifax cockpit remaining in the world, and is an historical artifact in its own right, to have mounted it on the front of a frankensteinish reproduction would have relegated it to being just an externally viewed display some 10-12 feet off the ground and simply “part” of that reproduction.
The YAM “Halifax” isnt a Halifax, it “is” an excellent replica, with various compromises to achieve that, it does contain some original Halifax fuselage portions so its a hybrid, but the Hastings wing is not an exact equivalent to a Halifax wing.
Adding the IWM Cockpit wouldnt have made it a “real” Halifax, and today the IWM cockpit remains the only and largest section of a Halifax in the Imperial War Museum’s collection, and it would seem a very relevent aircraft to have represented in that collection?
The YAM Halifax now has a cockpit, it is a replica cockpit but does the job perfectly of being externally viewed display some 10-12′ off the ground.
Had the RAFM Halifax been recovered from a lake, with a burnt out or crushed cockpit from impact of the crash, it may have been appropriate to marry the only rare, complete and original cockpit onto an intact Halifax airframe to create one complete survivor – that wasnt the outcome offered at YAM.
The YAM Halifax is a very important display, it is the only “complete” and “restored” “Halifax” viewable to the UK public to record the role of this important Bomber Command aircraft, and therefore plays a different role to the IWM cockpit, and the RAFM unrestored “wreck”, but its purpose and provenance needs to be understood, and put into perspective.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI havent looked at the I am the Walrus Clip but it is on youtube somewhere, but the aircraft is a Shackleton I believe?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMe neither.
Can we have a screen grab please?
Moggy
Moderator
Yes, here’s a screen grab, and yes its there when you search without logging on, I hadnt realised it wasnt there when you did?
I normally view the site without logging on, and if I need to search for something do so again without logging on.
I only log on to post/reply, or to access or send a PM, and my email tells me if I have received a PM so I dont log on routinely just to check.
With the old threads it would be of value if the main index page showed the original author (which it does) and the original date posted of the first post, that would seem to resolve most issues?
I routinely look at the date of a post when reading through such threads to put the comments in a time context in anycase.
I know the image verification has to be complicated enough to stop a character recognition to be done by a BOT but sometimes its so difficult to identify that it takes 3 or 4 go’s, I will just log on before searching in the future! smiles
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHow many of us can remember exactly the wording,number or type when searching,not only that you may not know that a thread even existed that’s why you are searching in the first place.
If you go on holiday for 2 weeks there can be pages of new posts to catch up on.
Mark ,what does the image verification code bit mean?
Trumper,
its a random 6 character code designed to stop “bots” or “autospams” from navigating the search engine, though I am not sure why that matters unless its bandwidth related due to constant abuse by those “bots”?
Its on the search page:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/search.php
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington😎 It would also help if the search function was accurate.If you can’t get the answers you need from it then you need to ask.
It would help if you could search without having to enter an image verification code that was difficult to read – smiles
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
The more one thinks about it, the sillier it is?
If you have a comment/question/statement on a topic you are encouraged to search to find the information – resulting in an old thread – if the old thread doesnt answer your question or encourages you to add a relevent comment to it the best option is to do so in the old thread, not open a new one (especially if you then have to copy/paste half the content from the old one to make your new one relevent?)
Rule 9 either forbids creation of any new threads on a previously discussed topic that is stale by 6 months or more, (surely not the intent to cease discussion of stale topics?) or otherwise contradicts its rule trying to avoid multiple threads on the same topic by permitting such threads to be resurrected? (surely more efficient to extend an existing thread on a topic than to create new ones every seven months?, or to forbid further discussion of the same topic?)
I like Peter’s moderation habit of ammending the title to tell you its a zombie thread, that allows you to skip it as being old news, but if its a topic of interest to leap to the last comment and discover the new activity- its not that hard to deal with? and minimises bandwidth surely?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI do worry about the future of classic aircraft such as the Canberra, Hunter,Gnat to name a few as people seem far happier to see 15 Spitfires in the air rather then a couple of classic jets……might just be my age:confused:………and before you say it i totally respect what the Spitfire did for us in WW2 that dos’nt mean we forget about the rest.
all the best Matt
Its not the Armchair Enthusiast who is funding the operation of 15 Spitfires over a Gnat, Hunter or Canberra – Lets face it the combat history of the Spitfire is always going to generate more ownership investment by the wealthy than a Canberra, regardless of the costs of maintenance etc – Temora’s operating two spitfires and have just grounded their Canberra.
Similarly too the RAF will fund and operate the BBMF with Spitfires/Hurricanes and the Lancaster due to the significance of those aircraft in RAF and UK history, the post war jets simply dont hold that same place in history.
So too those iconic aircraft will generate more recognition and support from the General Public than post war jets.
Online chat about “wouldnt it be good” to bring back the Lightnings etc from SA isnt going to result in that outcome, that will only occur if a private owner, consortium or static museum pursues it. The idle chat of armchair enthusiasts is just that – harmless “what ifs” or “hopes”.
Armchair Enthusiasts need to be encouraged/introduced or “lead” to viable outcomes to support, despite the expectations of many of us, the Vulcan has successfully done that a number of times, and the recent HS748 fund raising here recently did the same.
Some see “armchair enthusiast” as some type of insult?
But its simply a level in ones aviation interest or participation, starting with the dis-interested or hostile spouse, through the levels of General Public who do or dont occasionally attend an airshow, the magazine browser at the newsagent, through to the modeller, flightsim enthusiast, the armchair enthusiast, the donor/sponsor, the active volunteer , and finally the owner and or pilot/operator?
A relatively new description recently used elsewhere is the “Foaming Enthusiast” but I’m not sure thats intended as a term of endearment? smiles.
So, “Armchair Enthusiast”, what will YOU do to make a difference to YOUR avaition community? Will you sit and type at a computer or will you dare branch out and make a REAL difference to aviation in the UK?
Ta,
Kurt (RAF, Volunteer in Historic Aviation, Married, Child, etc etc)
Most Armchair Enthusiasts are willing to provide some support or even keen to become involved, but dont know how to, or get invited to do so, many assume their lack of skills/knowledge will render them spurned, even at the local volunteer museum.
Again the HS748 thread and fundraising here is an example of successfully engaging and harnessing those interests and resources.
Smiles
Mark Pilkington – MASFE
Member – Australian Society of Foaming Enthusiasts
“Your not a true and committed Aviation Enthusiast unless Your foaming at the mouth!”
!Get up out of your Armchair and get foaming!
Sign In
